EU-15 on Track to Meet 2012 Kyoto GHG Target, Despite Mixed Performances; 20% Reduction by 2020 Not Attainable Without Further Measures
19 October 2008
 |
| EU-15 greenhouse gas emissions and projections for the Kyoto period 2008–2012. Click to enlarge. Source: EEA |
The EU-15 should meet its collective target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 8% for the period 2008–2012, according to a new report by the European Environment Agency (EEA). A large part of this decrease will come from emission reduction projects that EU countries will finance in other countries.
The report also gives a long-term estimate of the emissions situation in Europe. Although emissions are projected to continue decreasing until 2020 in the EU-27, the 20% reduction target compared to 1990, endorsed by European leaders in 2007, will remain out of reach without the implementation of additional measures, such as the EU energy and climate change package proposed by the European Commission in January 2008, according to the report.
Emission performance remains mixed in the EU-15. A few Member States are still off their Kyoto track. However, if the expected outstanding performance of other Member States is taken into account, the EU-15 as a whole should meet its Kyoto commitment. In addition, the situation would look better for some Member States if their projections took full account of the emission restrictions facing their industries covered by the EU Emission Trading Scheme.
—Prof. Jacqueline McGlade, Executive Director of the EEA
The report, Greenhouse gas emission trends and projections in Europe 2008, evaluates historic emissions from 1990–2006. It also looks at projections of future emissions during the Kyoto Protocol commitment period (2008–2012).
Overall, projections from Member States for the Kyoto period indicate that the EU-15 could cut emissions by more than 11% compared to the base-year. This could be achieved by a combination of domestic policies and measures (in force and planned), carbon sink activities and credits for emission reductions outside EU.
Data show that the 15 EU Member States sharing a common target under the Kyoto Protocol (EU-15) achieved a reduction of their greenhouse gases by 2.7% between the base year and 2006. The policies and measures in place as of today will not be sufficient for the EU-15 to meet its Kyoto target, as they are expected to push down emissions between 2006 and 2010 to an average level only 3.6 % below the base-year emissions. If the additional measures planned by 10 Member States were fully implemented and on time, a further reduction of 3.3 % could be obtained. The full effect of the EU Emission Trading Scheme is not reflected in all Member States’ projections.
Most EU-15 Member States intend to use carbon sinks—such as planting forests that absorb CO2—to achieve their Kyoto target. The total amount of carbon dioxide that could be removed annually between 2008 and 2012 is relatively small (1.4 % compared to 1990), although it is somewhat higher than the projections made in 2007.
Ten EU-15 Member States have planned to use the Kyoto Mechanisms to achieve their targets. This is expected to reduce emissions by a further 3.0%. The Kyoto Protocol envisages market-based mechanisms that allow industrialized countries to meet their targets by benefiting from emission reductions in other countries. Under these mechanisms, Member States can trade emissions between themselves or acquire credits from emission-cutting projects they finance abroad. These mechanisms also help the transfer of low-carbon technologies to other countries and promote sustainable development.
The EEA report singles out the case of those countries that have promised “significant emission reductions in a limited time frame (2006–2010) from policies and measures that have not been implemented yet”. In addition, countries which project significant emission reductions from 2006 to meet their target by 2010 will actually have to sustain their efforts and further reduce emissions until 2012. In the end, some Member States might make use of Kyoto mechanisms more intensively than they are currently planning.
The overall EU-15 Kyoto target of –8 % corresponds to differentiated emission targets for each Member State. In 2006, four EU-15 Member States (France, Greece, Sweden and the United Kingdom) had already reached a level below their Kyoto target. Eight additional EU-15 Member States (Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal) project that they will achieve their targets, but projections from three Member States (Denmark, Italy and Spain) indicate that they will not meet their emission reduction goals. However, the report notes that gaps between targets and predictions are much narrower than the projections made in 2007.
Ten of the 12 Member States that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007 have individual reduction targets of 6 or 8%. Only Cyprus and Malta do not have a target. In the EU-12, the Member States project that they will achieve their Kyoto targets despite projected increases in emissions between 2006 and 2010. Slovenia is the only one of these Member States planning to use the Kyoto mechanisms to meet its target.
2020. With the measures currently in place, EU-27 greenhouse gas emissions are projected to increase by 1% between 2006 and 2010, the report concludes. With the implementation of additional measures, EU-27 emissions are projected to decrease continuously between 2006 and 2020.
Nevertheless, current projections indicate that the EU-27 will not be able to reach the 20% reduction target. Most projections from Member States do not, however, take into account the effects of the EU climate change and energy package proposed by the Commission in January 2008.
—Greenhouse gas emission trends and projections in Europe 2008, Executive Summary
The executive summary of the report and the country profiles are already available online. The full report will be published in November.
Resources
Greenhouse gas emission trends and projections in Europe 2008 (Executive summary)
Want acceptance of the goals here? DROP the AGW part and get on with energy independence.
When suspension of disbelief fails - you get disbelief.
Posted by: | 19 October 2008 at 10:46 AM
AGW is a reality. It is supported by every recognized scientific organization. Controlling it is/should be the goal.
Although the majority of countries may not make the Kyoto targets, it is a laudable effort.
If countries don't take the science that backs AGW seriously, then you get have baked policies that are doomed to failure from the outset.
Posted by: aym | 19 October 2008 at 11:29 AM
It is really a matter of semantics now. We've seen how effective Global Energy Independence is in nearly every industrialized nation. The movement to alternative energy resources and energy conservation is being embraced because:
1) It breaks addiction to petroleum
2) It eliminates massive purchases of foreign oil
3) It creates jobs at home
4) It grows homeland economies
5) It limits need for military adventurism
6) It eliminates single point energy sources (security)
7) It's less polluting (i.e. good for environment)
This is the order of interest industrial populations demonstrate for energy independence. Poll after poll and national elections prove this. The question is when will the play makers get on board the winning message? Or will they continue to play the same old game and get the same old results?
Posted by: sulleny | 19 October 2008 at 12:15 PM
Here's the catch 'carbon sink activities and credits for emission reductions ' may be illusory, either exaggerated or irrelevant. Therefore when they claim to have met CO2 targets Mother Nature might think otherwise. Far from being a world leader in emissions reductions, the Europeans are showing how not to do it. Instead of hard reductions they are building new local coal plants on the excuse of weird and unverifiable offset schemes on the other side of the world. What will either save the planet or trigger its downfall is the peaking of all fossil fuels within 20 years. Either way it's a tough legacy for future generations.
Posted by: Aussie | 19 October 2008 at 12:29 PM
I hope they can resolve the economics of emission reductions. Since economists can be found to argue for anything it is hard to know.
20% is a lot of reduction but it seems possible to me. But in world terms it would be very little. As long as China, India, etc. keep roaring along the CO2 rise will continue. And we will not succeed in convincing poorer peoples to make sacrifices while we live well.
Energy independence, or at least low dependence, seems more important than CO2. When a few areas supply the bulk of the world's energy the result must be a lot of quarrels - usually referred to as wars - between nations. And nations keep arms spending up just in case.
Posted by: K | 19 October 2008 at 03:58 PM
The thing with Kyoto is that the targets of reduction come without a plan to achieve these reductions.
The only real plan is to replace fossil fuels with something else as a source of energy.
The targets should not be "CO2 reduction" but
1 ) implementation of co-generation
2 ) energy use reduction methods that are shown to work
3 ) Wind, solar, tidal, renewable energy
4 ) development of geothermal and ground source systems
5 ) A reconsideration of Nuclear. This needs to address safety factors, and bomb access.
Until a forward thinking plan is adopted by a majority of countries, there will be no solution to world climate change.
Posted by: John Taylor | 20 October 2008 at 05:34 AM
In addition to what Aussie said:
This has been shown to be reductions over some theoretical emissions level never actually realized. In other words, it's an accounting fiction. No real reduction in emissions is actually created.Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 20 October 2008 at 07:37 AM
Yaaa I can post again! For some reason that typekey thingy hated me:(
Anyway on topic I think as a conservative that going for co2 reduction goals is a good idea both because of what MIGHT BE and more importantly because at the same time we do that we get the bleeping bleepity bleep out of bleepy areas of the bleeping de bleep world we dont bleeping wana bleep around with in the first place.
Besides we are gona have to jump off oil sooner or later might as well do the work now and get h2 biothis and that and bev and everything else up to speed BEFORE we might NEED IT.
Anyhoo if it is found that co2 realy is the be all end all we are fubared anyway as china and india alone will outfart the rest of the world combined fairly shortly.
Posted by: wintermane | 20 October 2008 at 02:21 PM
John's list seems more likely to find support internationally. I would suggest that in point number 2, the transition from petroleum energy to electrified energy be a key. As well as effective conservation methods.
And a major step is to adopt distributed generation as a growth path for conservation. While the heaviest loads on the grid (government, industry, business) will need to be serviced by sustainable baseload power, residential light-loading can be taken up by distributed energy. The benefits are myriad, especially in the interest of equitable access to energy on a planetary basis.
Posted by: sulleny | 20 October 2008 at 03:19 PM
All sorts of concentrations tend to be toxic.
Whether Animal Vegetable or Mineral. This also applies to Power in all context, energy, monetary, or military.
Lots of critters like to concentrate resources its just something they do without thinking.
As long as the brain switch knows when to turn off!
Posted by: arnold | 20 October 2008 at 05:28 PM
@wintermane
I'm not going to argue AGW in this post but if it's real we can't use the 'china and india will undo the efforts we make' arguement because the effects are accumulative; if the they emit CO2 and we emit CO2 the negative effects of GW will be twice as bad as if just one of us keeps emitting CO2.
It doesn't matter who else or what else emits CO2 [or uses oil], if we can do our part to reduce we can at least slow down the costs of GW and peak oil.
Posted by: ai_vin | 20 October 2008 at 06:12 PM
Im not making that point im making a far more important one. Because we can count on china and india and others to keep the co2 up we need more then ever to get as much of what we need as close to home as possible because we have no real idea what might come.
Caution and prudence says we should be prepared for the worst and fuel security gives us a step to that preparation.
Posted by: wintermane | 20 October 2008 at 07:43 PM
The problem that "China and India will pollute" should be recognized.
The solution is to ~
First, reduce our own western emissions that are far higher per person.
Second, export the most useful and effective technology to China and India for reducing their emissions.
Expecting the poorest third world to lead in fixing a mess the richest countries made is silly beyond belief.
Posted by: John Taylor | 22 October 2008 at 10:13 AM
Quoth John Taylor:
The "poorest" are increasingly getting telephone service.They're not buying old Bakelite desktop phones and stringing billions of miles of copper. They are putting up cell towers (solar-powered in many places) and buying modern handsets. Both the cost and environmental impact of the cell system is vastly smaller than the methods the West used to bootstrap.
When the poor are expected to be among the biggest victims of climate change, there is no excuse for anyone adding more to the problem—least of all the poor themselves. Besides, oil is an increasing burden and pollution in third-world cities is the stuff of nightmares. All of us, G8 and third world alike, should be halting the expansion of fossil power. A cargo trike with an electric assist will work as well in NYC traffic as in Bangalore or Mombasa. PV-charged CF lights are cheaper than kerosene lamps across much of the world, and there's no reason not to expand the PV systems to provide energy for electric vehicles. Wind and micro-hydro can be expanded massively in many parts of the world.
Let's start the poor where we're headed, not where we were a century ago.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 23 October 2008 at 06:05 AM
As long as China and India are not required to reduve CO2 and trash there economies you will not get my vote for trashing the US standard of living at the altar of AGW. If its a global problem then China and India must be FORCED to reduce along with everyone else use of military action will probably be needed if you are not for FORCING a reduction then you are just for distroying the American standard of living an i have no time for these people nor money or votes.
Posted by: | 31 October 2008 at 10:00 PM